Tipsarevic: "pay in tennis is ridiculously low"

SystemicAnomaly said:
Consider this. So far this year, Sharapova has earned nearly $4.4 million (just for this year). Nadal has received more that $4.9 million this year. The other top players are close to those figures. Now if all this prize money was spread a lit bit more equitably, the situation would be better. Note that these top players are also receiving appearance money for some events and are getting quite a bit from sponsors as well. No reason why the prize $ at the top can't be spread around a bit more than it is.
Click to expand...
well, Sharapova probably made like $10 mill last month (OK, exaggerating a bit, but you all know what I'm talking about) just from her sponsors ... the prize money for her ... peanut butter ... Djoko is getting so much money from head and that new Japanese sponsor... God knows what Fed is getting from his sponsors (Rolex etc) ... Nadal too ... I have a feeling that top tennis stars are actors not tennis players.

but the thing is, what do you do with little guys? I really feel for them. I wish I could post this article about a guy who is ranked 300 or so ... sorry, can't remember his name right now ... it was posted on MTF, he has his blog (I'll try to look it up and share his story with you)... hotel expenses, travel expenses ... barely surviving
 
okdude1992 said:
I don't get why some people can't seem to understand: it is total greed that the players get such a small chunk of the revenue
Click to expand...

again you haven't demonstrated who is getting rich off of tennis. we know the top 20 players in the world are. but you have yet to demonstrate who is being greedy here other than the top 4 players in the world. you haven't explained the tennis business model to us to prove the greed. The business model is fundamentally different than US football baseball and basketball. This is capitalism. Money will flow to those that deserve it in a market economy. very few people can name more than 3 or 4 pro ATP tennis players. That should tell you something about why those below that level don't make as much as You Think they should.
 
Evan77 said:
well, Sharapova probably made like $10 mill last month (OK, exaggerating a bit, but you all know what I'm talking about) just from her sponsors ... the prize money for her ... peanut butter ... Djoko is getting so much money from head and that new Japanese sponsor... God knows what Fed is getting from his sponsors (Rolex etc) ... Nadal too ... I have a feeling that top tennis stars are actors not tennis players.

but the thing is, what do you do with little guys? I really feel for them. I wish I could post this article about a guy who is ranked 300 or so ... sorry, can't remember his name right now ... it was posted on MTF, he has his blog (I'll try to look it up and share his story with you)... hotel expenses, travel expenses ... barely surviving
Click to expand...

barely surviving yet he continues to play. now why is that? logically, there has to be something very attractive about playing tennis for a living that goes beyond the money. If he was truly being taken advantage of in this system, if he was being exploited, he would simply quit and pursue another occupation. yet he doesn't. he continues to play for mere peanuts. his choice. why? because it beats actually having TO WORK for a living like 99.9% of humanity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
decades said:
barely surviving yet he continues to play. now why is that? logically, there has to be something very attractive about playing tennis for a living that goes beyond the money. If he was truly being taken advantage of in this system, if he was being exploited, he would simply quit and pursue another occupation. yet he doesn't. he continues to play for mere peanuts. his choice. why? because it beats actually having TO WORK for a living like 99.9% of humanity.
Click to expand...

+1

If anyone thinks that getting to travel the world and make at the very least, an upper middle class salary is a hard life they've been feeding off of daddy's teat for too long.

The very nature of the sport lends itself to superstars, individual superstars. Unlike a team sport where the team franchise can be worth something each person's 'marketability' counts for more. Being seen to win big titles is a major part of that worth. Being the only top player from a large economy also wins you more endorsements (hello Sania Mirza).

To give an example closer to home, I have a management consultant friend who's working as a business analyst for a respectable brand. In terms of lifestyle he is more or less exactly like the journeymen pros slugging it out on the tour. He lives out of a suitcase and other than when at work onsite or in meetings he will most likely be in a hotel room. He's making standard bank for the industry ($60-70 K all up including benefits). Right now he has no guarantee he will make partner or even associate. So in less than a year he gets to find out whether or not he'll be able to keep his job or progress up the ladder (it's a competitive world).

He has never described his life as anything approaching hard. It's a lot of traveling (which he loves) and work (but with interesting puzzles to solve). So it's not like he's eating ramen noodles here.

What is slightly odd though, is how little revenue the players get as a percentage of the take from tournaments. Now any sort of 'class action' movement won't take simply because of the nature of the beast in an individual sport, but I'd like to see it go up marginally more if only so that players lower down can afford better training and better healthcare so that better tennis can be played.
 
Tipsarevic is wrong. Tennis is a free market just like anything else. Tennis is a business first of all and if demand is low as in attendance, the earnings are lower. If Tipsarevic doesnt understand this, why doesnt he try to become a professional golfer. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something, tennis is a business just like everything else.
 
I agree that it is unfair if the NBA players get 51% of the revenue and tennis players get 13%. The players union should grow some balls.

Of course the ATP is getting screwed by the WTA. I'd love them to stand up to the WTA and threaten to split away at the slams but politically it would be difficult. If governments kick in for the slams, they wouldn't be thrilled by a split.
 
51% of "what" distributed among "how many"? 13% of "what" distributed among "how many"? Simply looking at percentages is misleading and doesn't yield anything conclusive.
 
Last edited:
If Tipsarevic wants more money, stop losing 6-2, 6-2 to lower ranked players and start winning more matches. Go play hard and beat Djokovic, Federer or Nadal and make the big money and become a superstar! :)
 
Mike Sams said:
If Tipsarevic wants more money, stop losing 6-2, 6-2 to lower ranked players and start winning more matches. Go play hard and beat Djokovic, Federer or Nadal and make the big money and become a superstar! :)
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read what was said in the 1st post? Tipsarevic is not looking for more money for himself. His concern is for the lower ranked players who are barely making enough to cover expenses.


decades said:
barely surviving yet he continues to play. now why is that? logically, there has to be something very attractive about playing tennis for a living that goes beyond the money. If he was truly being taken advantage of in this system, if he was being exploited, he would simply quit and pursue another occupation. yet he doesn't. he continues to play for mere peanuts. his choice. why? because it beats actually having TO WORK for a living like 99.9% of humanity.
Click to expand...

Many of those players are only good for 10 years on the tour. When they retire from pro tennis, they must get other jobs and actually WORK for a living. Sometimes that time on the tour will provide them with a resume for future jobs.
 
Tennis is the exact opposite of a free market. The ATP has a labour monopoly and it has no competitors. Its a de facto monopoly and behaves as such.



The Baseline said:
Tipsarevic is wrong. Tennis is a free market just like anything else. Tennis is a business first of all and if demand is low as in attendance, the earnings are lower. If Tipsarevic doesnt understand this, why doesnt he try to become a professional golfer. Everyone thinks they are entitled to something, tennis is a business just like everything else.
Click to expand...
 
10is said:
51% of "what" distributed among "how many"? 13% of "what" distributed among "how many"? Simply looking at percentages is misleading and doesn't yield anything conclusive.
Click to expand...

NBA players are fighting because their salaries are 51 percent of the overall revenue and we have between 11 and 13 percent (at the grand slams).
 
Mike Sams said:
The ATP is obviously stealing from all players. 13% of revenue for players is madness!
Click to expand...

I don't think it is the ATP stealing money.

For example, in the Australian Open, Tennis Australia would take some cash to fund itself and junior development.

This 13% number seems to only apply to the slams. Not sure what it is at the other tournaments.
 
Bartelby said:
Tennis is the exact opposite of a free market. The ATP has a labour monopoly and it has no competitors. Its a de facto monopoly and behaves as such.
Click to expand...


I think i see this differently. The ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) they are the union of the workers, not the employers. If the players are all in the union, they could have a monopoly of labour and call a strike and not play at Wimbledon unless they got a better pay deal.
 
Bartelby said:
Tennis is the exact opposite of a free market. The ATP has a labour monopoly and it has no competitors. Its a de facto monopoly and behaves as such.
Click to expand...

How can you have a labor monopoly when you have no labor? The players are independent contractors who set their own schedules, not salaried or hourly employees who are told when and where to show up.
 
This is an illusion. The ATP is supposedly a half/half split between players and management/media/torunament directors but the latter have the majority and choose the CEO so they have control and the players can only complain.

So the ATP is a managment structure controlled by management and not players and no profit goes back to players to share. Money mostly goes back into the business with a few benefits for players.

It is not a union and does not function as one and neither do the players have a union outside of it that functions as such.

If players had a majority on the ATP they would indeed be paid better.



diggler said:
I think i see this differently. The ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) they are the union of the workers, not the employers. If the players are all in the union, they could have a monopoly of labour and call a strike and not play at Wimbledon unless they got a better pay deal.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is a legal nicety (with a ton of case law) that does not affect my analysis in any way.



darrinbaker00 said:
How can you have a labor monopoly when you have no labor? The players are independent contractors who set their own schedules, not salaried or hourly employees who are told when and where to show up.
Click to expand...
 
diggler said:
NBA players are fighting because their salaries are 51 percent of the overall revenue and we have between 11 and 13 percent (at the grand slams).
Click to expand...

That is not what I meant. Let me rephrase:

In the NBA 51% of "how much" distributed among "how many"? In the ATP 13% of "how much" distributed among "how many"? Simply looking at percentages is misleading and doesn't yield anything conclusive.
 
And then Nadal trash talks Federer who simply wants to keep having tournys each year so lower ranked players can make a living. If Nadal's ranking system would have been implemented, players would have gone bankrupt.
 
Bartelby said:
This is a legal nicety (with a ton of case law) that does not affect my analysis in any way.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused whether anyone agrees with me or not. The players could boycott Wimbledon for example, unless they got a better pay deal. What is to stop them?
 
Getting players to do anything together is a hard ask given that they are not organised and there is no need to boycott anything as there are better options.

Guerilla boycotts are better than the one big staged event. The ATP needs the players to co-operate on all sorts of level so some strategic non-appearances at promotions and press conferences is a good start.
 
This is not really a Federer-Nadal issue.



Magnus said:
And then Nadal trash talks Federer who simply wants to keep having tournys each year so lower ranked players can make a living. If Nadal's ranking system would have been implemented, players would have gone bankrupt.
Click to expand...
 
diggler said:
I'm a bit confused whether anyone agrees with me or not. The players could boycott Wimbledon for example, unless they got a better pay deal. What is to stop them?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't many of the player actually be fined for missing a major tournament like Wimbledon?

diggler said:
As I said earlier, what would the 100th ranked heavy weight boxer expect to earn? Not much.
Click to expand...

Not the best analogy. There are about 1280 baseball players in MLB. The average MLB salary is more than $3 million. The 300th baseball rank player is making a very good living. Much of their travel/lodging expenses are paid by the team. They don't work as hard as tennis players either.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111205&content_id=26096930&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Consider the 300th NBA or NLF player. These guys are probably millionaires.
 
Occupy tennis? Income inequality grows on ATP Tour

^ Here is a story from USA Today (March of this year). Federer is the President of the ATP Tour's Players Council. Some of what he had to say...

"I believe it's a winner's tour, so the money is there for everyone to play for," he said in a recent conference call. "But at the same time, we wish as well that the lower rounds would also get a bigger raise as well... Obviously it's an important task for the council and the board to make sure all the lower rounds get a bigger raise in the future."

More from the article:

Most players agree that the top players bring in fans and sponsorships and deserve a bigger cut of the pie...

But they also say that the money is too heavily skewed toward later rounds, especially when stars already receive guarantees - big sums paid out by tournaments organizers just to show up.

"It's really bad," says Michael Russell, 33, a veteran who has never ranked higher than No. 60 in his 14-year career. "It's been going on a long time. You look at the difference of a guy ranked 80 and a guy ranked 10. They are going to make a lot more money, but the differences are astronomical. Compared to other sports, it's not even close."
 
Well golf is incredibly overpaid. they make so much money because they try to sell 1000s of dollars equipment to 50 yo rich hacks.

compared to other individual sports tennis is not underpaid. It's normal that you can't make a living outside the top100 in individual sports. and really you shouldn't.

tennis pros are not paid for playing tennis but for putting attendence into the seats. and nobody cares for the no.200. if you are not top100 for a longer time you need to find a real job. no need to feed mediocre players with huge salaries. tennis should be a fight for the top.

if you get there you make millions but if not get a job or do some coaching.


the #50 100m runner, boxer, swimmer or whatever can't make a living with his sport. that's the way it is and that's the way it should be with individual sports.

I see no reason why the top guys should make less just so that a few more guys can be pros.
 
Rickenbacker4003 said:
And to think I complained about my job as a shoe shine man. How arrogant of me.
Click to expand...

You don't get it.


Someone in tennis is making lot's of money. If players get only 12% of Grand Slams profit, then that is pretty unfair.

Janko is talking about distribution, and not like "we want more money, we don't care how"
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
Many of those players are only good for 10 years on the tour. When they retire from pro tennis, they must get other jobs and actually WORK for a living. Sometimes that time on the tour will provide them with a resume for future jobs.
Click to expand...

exactly. most people have multiple careers these days. when pro tennis players hit their 30s, easy street has hit a dead end and the real work begins! play time over boys. it's real world time.
 
Achilles82 said:
You don't get it.


Someone in tennis is making lot's of money. If players get only 12% of Grand Slams profit, then that is pretty unfair.

Janko is talking about distribution, and not like "we want more money, we don't care how"
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you don't get it. You're naive about business. Tennis does not have the same business model as NBA Baseball or NFL. that's your fallacy and grave misunderstanding. the numbers suggest that the business of tennis is simply not as profitable as the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Not even close. Therefore, there is not as much money to distribute to the talent. You're trying to compare apples (tennis) to oranges (NBA). That's useless. If you want a complete analysis, you need to examine all the numbers up and down the entire Tennis economic value chain, and not just the % of revenue the players get from a GS tournament. That's an incomplete data set.

It's obvious that the players outside the top 40 only serve a function to fill up spots at a pro tournament. They are largely anonymous except to the most ardent tennis supporter. The fans don't come to watch them play. In that sense, they are like the team that plays the harlem globetrotters. They are merely bit players on the stage, used to facilitate the real entertainment. If the people don't come to watch 40-350 play tennis, why should they get the money?

This is also why they won't strike when tennis is not in a boom like it was in 1970s. There is tremendous competition for the entertainment dollar. If 40-350 go on strike the world would collectively yawn. The top 40 know how bloody good they have it and they aren't about to strike over non issues like too many tournament commitments. They won't kill their golden goose.

Every business does not have the same profit margins. A grocery store has tiny profit margins. Google, oth, has immense profit margins. The employees of GOOG get more of the revenue than the workers of a grocery store. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Achilles82 said:
You don't get it.


Someone in tennis is making lot's of money. If players get only 12% of Grand Slams profit, then that is pretty unfair.

Janko is talking about distribution, and not like "we want more money, we don't care how"
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right, we're talking about spoiled rich athletes that complain about not getting as much as higher paid spoiled rich athletes. I have to go to sleep early to get my shinebox ready for the morning rush.
 
Thats because no one outside the top 3 in the world know how to win a grand slam. Maybe these guys should start winning bigger tournaments and it wouldn't seem so low??
 
decades, we get it, you took Econ 101 in college. You like to tell people 'this is capitalism' and say 'You're naive about business.' You probably took a few business classes too, and maybe even occasionally pick up a copy of the economist when you get your latte. Capitalism is not a perfect economic system – perhaps your school has a course in environmental or welfare economics and you can learn about some of its flaws.

Anyway, you seem to know so much about the lives of tennis players, with a particular obsession for their sex lives and this idea that they could easily transition their skills into another profession. It simply isn't true. Stop acting like an over-rational, socially stunted codger.

As for this article, this is a sport that a lot of people like and the people that are on the lower half of the top hundred have been raised to love tennis and now are working themselves to the bone in their 20s, not developing other skills, and for some developing chronic ailments. They should probably unionize, because you can't have much of a top ten without lesser players, and this will give them the bargaining power they need. It will be tough when they don't have much of a net income as it is but, hey, how do you think we got the 40 hour work week?
 
And how are we supposed to get all these numbers, and why are you basing your own analysis on a complete lack of numbers.

Is it because its so 'obvious' to you that you don't need them?




decades said:
With all due respect, you don't get it. You're naive about business. Tennis does not have the same business model as NBA Baseball or NFL. that's your fallacy and grave misunderstanding. the numbers suggest that the business of tennis is simply not as profitable as the NBA, NFL, or MLB. Not even close. Therefore, there is not as much money to distribute to the talent. You're trying to compare apples (tennis) to oranges (NBA). That's useless. If you want a complete analysis, you need to examine all the numbers up and down the entire Tennis economic value chain, and not just the % of revenue the players get from a GS tournament. That's an incomplete data set.

It's obvious that the players outside the top 40 only serve a function to fill up spots at a pro tournament. They are largely anonymous except to the most ardent tennis supporter. The fans don't come to watch them play. In that sense, they are like the team that plays the harlem globetrotters. They are merely bit players on the stage, used to facilitate the real entertainment. If the people don't come to watch 40-350 play tennis, why should they get the money?

This is also why they won't strike when tennis is not in a boom like it was in 1970s. There is tremendous competition for the entertainment dollar. If 40-350 go on strike the world would collectively yawn. The top 40 know how bloody good they have it and they aren't about to strike over non issues like too many tournament commitments. They won't kill their golden goose.

Every business does not have the same profit margins. A grocery store has tiny profit margins. Google, oth, has immense profit margins. The employees of GOOG get more of the revenue than the workers of a grocery store. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
 
FedererUberAlles said:
decades, we get it, you took Econ 101 in college. You like to tell people 'this is capitalism' and say 'You're naive about business.' You probably took a few business classes too, and maybe even occasionally pick up a copy of the economist when you get your latte. Capitalism is not a perfect economic system – perhaps your school has a course in environmental or welfare economics and you can learn about some of its flaws.

Anyway, you seem to know so much about the lives of tennis players, with a particular obsession for their sex lives and this idea that they could easily transition their skills into another profession. It simply isn't true. Stop acting like an over-rational, socially stunted codger.

As for this article, this is a sport that a lot of people like and the people that are on the lower half of the top hundred have been raised to love tennis and now are working themselves to the bone in their 20s, not developing other skills, and for some developing chronic ailments. They should probably unionize, because you can't have much of a top ten without lesser players, and this will give them the bargaining power they need. It will be tough when they don't have much of a net income as it is but, hey, how do you think we got the 40 hour work week?
Click to expand...

I never said they could or couldn't "transition" to another career. That's not really the point of this discussion. That's not really our concern. Are we equally concerned when a laid off Auto worker must now, living in the middle of nowhere, have to transition his limited skills and find a new career? Are we equally concerned for the 10,000 employees of Nokia who are going to get laid off and now must transition to a new career?

Should we worry about these people if they are making a personal choice to play tennis and accept the supposedly horrendous pay and working conditions?

Understand that 9/10 pro tennis players come from a family of privilege and wealth. that's just the fact. And now you are asking us to feel sorry for, and fight for these people who likely have been babied and pampered their entire lives, who are making their very own personal choices about what they will and won't do for money.

I am sorry but there are way more important causes in the world worth fighting for than how much money a pro tennis player is making.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bartelby said:
And how are we supposed to get all these numbers, and why are you basing your own analysis on a complete lack of numbers.

Is it because its so 'obvious' to you that you don't need them?
Click to expand...

thank you for having the sense to admit that you don't have enough information to determine if tennis players are under paid. I oth, believe in market economics and trust that the market is paying them correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your arguments are irrelevant to the argument with which we're concerned.

This is: are professional players compensated adequately for the revenues that their skills help to generate?



decades said:
I never said they could or couldn't "transition" to another career. That's not really the point is it? That's not really our concern is it? Or are you equally concerned when a laid off Auto worker must now, living in the middle of nowhere, have to transition his limited skills and find a new career? Are you equally concerned for the 10,000 employees of Nokia who are going to get laid off and now must transition to a new career?

Why should we worry about these people if they are making a personal choice to play tennis and accept the supposedly horrendous pay and working conditions?

You do understand that 9/10 pro tennis players come from a family of privilege and wealth? that's just the fact. And now you are asking us to feel sorry for these people who have been babied and pampered their entire lives, who are making their very own personal choices about what they will and won't do for money. Why?

I am sorry but there are way more important causes in the world worth fighting for than how much money a pro tennis player is making.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Your arguments are irrelevant to the argument with which we're concerned.

This is: are professional players compensated adequately for the revenues that their skills help to generate?
Click to expand...

quite obviously they are. why? because there is anything but a lack of willing replacements who will step right in and fill the void if one of the 40-350 largely anonymous players decides traveling the world playing tennis for a living is just not very much fun anymore.

there is more to a job than "take home pay". Imagine a sandy Mediterranean beach and use your imagination. In addition, part of the remuneration of being a pro tennis player is the "option value" of having the chance, on a weekly basis, to take home a huge prize. This option value is part of the "comp package" of the typical ATP level tennis player, and is obviously exceedingly valuable to the average pro.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You read like someone who has just been taught the worst form of economics and is anxious to inflict it on everyone else.




decades said:
quite obviously they are. why? because there is anything but a lack of willing replacements who will step right in and fill the void if one of the 40-350 largely anonymous players decides traveling the world playing tennis for a living is just not very much fun anymore.

there is more to a job than "take home pay". Imagine a sandy Mediterranean beach and use your imagination. In addition, part of the remuneration of being a pro tennis player is the "option value" of having the chance, on a weekly basis, to take home a huge prize. This option value is part of the "comp package" of the typical ATP level tennis player, and is obviously exceedingly valuable to the average pro.
Click to expand...
 
I am astonished at the low level of understanding evident in this thread.

Too many idiotic comments to respond to them all, however, here is the simple truth.

Tennis players share in less than 15% of the revenue stream generated by the sport.

This is a ludicrously low number compared to any other professional sport and is a figure unrelated to relative popularity of tennis vs professional golf, lacrosse or tiddlywinks.

In other words, their share of the existing revenue is very low.

Got it?

(oh, and I agree 100% with Bartelby, but I doubt most of the posters even understand what he is trying to tell them)
 
Tipsarevic is absolutely right and the solutions as others have pointed out would be 1. increase the % that goes to prizes and 2. Increase the money for the initial rounds and reduce a bit the money on the final rounds.

To the people that seem to think is wrong for Tipsy to complaint, everybody is entitled to complaint and try to change things for better, that doesn't mean you are a whiner, all the contrary, that is how the world became what it is, things CAN change and some time HAVE to change, this is not a employee / employer situation where I would agree that if you do not like what is going on then resign, this is a business relationship and each part have the right to complaint and try to get a better deal, specially if that "part" is pretty much what brings the money to the equation.

Is ridiculous to think, Oh this is the path I have chosen and must accept the things the way the are, please, we would all be slaves and colonies and women would not vote etc, etc, etc if everybody would think this way.


... if you are happy with your shoe shining job then that is your problem.
 
Last edited:
sundaypunch said:
It is a product that is perfect for TV.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. Players roaming around countless acres of grass at different stages is not a perfect product for TV. Football is a perfect product for TV. Golf does well but to say that's it's perfectly suited for TV is preposterous. Endings are often anti-climactic. The sport isn't head-to-head. It's a flawed product, but one that just happens to be more popular than tennis today.
 
Bartelby said:
You read like someone who has just been taught the worst form of economics and is anxious to inflict it on everyone else.
Click to expand...

you sound like a socialist who possesses zero understanding of free market economics.
 
Name me two organizations that organize male professional tennis matches on a global basis each week?

Now name me one dozen organizations that manufacture tennis racquets?

Now name me two dozen organizations that manufacture tennis clothing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Highest average pay in pro sports.
Replies
8
Views
1K
Harry_Wild
Harry_Wild
beard
Medvedev about earning in tennis... Numbers...
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
Wurm
Wurm
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
2016 Djokovic - ridiculously low odds
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
Tennis_Hands
T
Cobaine
Excellent WSJ on the pay discrepancy in tennis
Replies
43
Views
5K
Dave1982
D
Otacon
Is Tennis the Most Financially Unforgiving Sports?
Replies
8
Views
2K
tennis24x7
T
Back
Top